21 years for mass murder or execution – which is less moral?

Texas has had its crime and punishment problems. According to the Innocence Project of Texas, the Lone Star State leads the nation in DNA exonerations.

Since Texas enacted a post-conviction DNA access law in 2001, 37 individuals have been cleared of serious crimes, including murder. On average, exonerees spent 13.5 years behind bars for crimes they did not commit.

The longest-serving exoneree, Cornelius Dupree, spent 30 years in prison for aggravated robbery and sexual assault. In January, a Dallas court formally overturned his conviction.

Then there’s the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was put to death in 2004 for the murder by arson of his two children. Experts who have reviewed the case now conclude that the forensic evidence used to convict Willingham was “characteristic of mystics or psychics.”

There’s no clear evidence that Texas has executed anyone who is innocent. But all these errors and all these doubts are enough to cause reasonable people to question the ethics of capital punishment and whether the risks and costs associated with it outweigh the benefits.

That’s 100 days for each life he took. He would become eligible for parole in 10 years. Does that make any sense? Is that justice?

Texas sends too many people to death row. More needs to be done to ensure that those who end up there are actually guilty of the crimes for which they have been sentenced to die, and more needs to be done to ensure that prosecutors seek the death penalty in a narrower range of cases.

Should Texas abandon the death penalty? There’s a good moral case to be made against all capital punishment. But there are some crimes that are so heinous that, in cases in which guilt is incontrovertible, society must reserve the right to exact the ultimate punishment.

Twenty-one years for mass murder, 100 days for each life taken, or execution – which is less moral?